Most Overrated Course

[knock it close]

Here's another example of the green shrinkage at pebble, here's #8 in 1920 (h/t @hainesy76)

 

[raynorfan1]

Here's another example of the green shrinkage at pebble, here's #8 in 1920 (h/t @hainesy76)

 

 

Interesting concept...but I would argue that if you transported a golfer from 1920 to 2017, they would have a hard time differentiating what we call "fairway" from what they called "green".

[knock it close]

Here's another example of the green shrinkage at pebble, here's #8 in 1920 (h/t @hainesy76)

 

 

Interesting concept...but I would argue that if you transported a golfer from 1920 to 2017, they would have a hard time differentiating what we call "fairway" from what they called "green".

Haha I agree but the whole front right portion of that "green" is now a bunker and the shape is much different I like how the green here looks like it falls over the cliff

[FairwayFred]

Here's another example of the green shrinkage at pebble, here's #8 in 1920 (h/t @hainesy76)

 

 

Interesting concept...but I would argue that if you transported a golfer from 1920 to 2017, they would have a hard time differentiating what we call "fairway" from what they called "green".

Haha I agree but the whole front right portion of that "green" is now a bunker and the shape is much different I like how the green here looks like it falls over the cliff

 

That green is amazingly cool looking compared to what is there now. It always amazes me when I play there how small and uninterestingly shaped the greens are and I know originally they were big, expansive and had unique organic shapes. Would be a big improvement on what's their now IMHO.

[knock it close]

Here's another example of the green shrinkage at pebble, here's #8 in 1920 (h/t @hainesy76)

 

 

Interesting concept...but I would argue that if you transported a golfer from 1920 to 2017, they would have a hard time differentiating what we call "fairway" from what they called "green".

Haha I agree but the whole front right portion of that "green" is now a bunker and the shape is much different I like how the green here looks like it falls over the cliff

 

That green is amazingly cool looking compared to what is there now. It always amazes me when I play there how small and uninterestingly shaped the greens are and I know originally they were big, expansive and had unique organic shapes. Would be a big improvement on what's their now IMHO.

I get with it being such a high profile resort that it's tough to do a full resto, but with how solid the bones are it could be an absolutely immaculate track. I don't want to say forthright that it's a shell of itself but it could be sooooo bold and daring.

[FairwayFred]

Here's another example of the green shrinkage at pebble, here's #8 in 1920 (h/t @hainesy76)

 

 

Interesting concept...but I would argue that if you transported a golfer from 1920 to 2017, they would have a hard time differentiating what we call "fairway" from what they called "green".

Haha I agree but the whole front right portion of that "green" is now a bunker and the shape is much different I like how the green here looks like it falls over the cliff

 

That green is amazingly cool looking compared to what is there now. It always amazes me when I play there how small and uninterestingly shaped the greens are and I know originally they were big, expansive and had unique organic shapes. Would be a big improvement on what's their now IMHO.

I get with it being such a high profile resort that it's tough to do a full resto, but with how solid the bones are it could be an absolutely immaculate track. I don't want to say forthright that it's a shell of itself but it could be sooooo bold and daring.

 

Pinehurst did it why not Pebble?

[teejaywhy]

What about those pictures makes the course design good? Basically all sand around a green. Isn't that what a kindergartener would do if tasked with designing holes, for lack of creativity?

 

 

Patience, grasshopper.

[Roadking2003]

 

What about those pictures makes the course design good? Basically all sand around a green. Isn't that what a kindergartener would do if tasked with designing holes, for lack of creativity?

 

True. Just like Pinehurst #2. Ugly.

[Roadking2003]

Pebble looks infinitely more natural with the sandy areas. The perfectly manicured grass for miles looks unnatural to the rocky and uneven coastline. Giving the course a more natural look may not dramatically change how it plays, but the course looks much better, which I suppose is a part of design.

 

I don't care. I prefer beauty over natural. I can go to 1000 places and see "natural". Natural <> Beauty.

[FairwayFred]

 

What about those pictures makes the course design good? Basically all sand around a green. Isn't that what a kindergartener would do if tasked with designing holes, for lack of creativity?

 

True. Just like Pinehurst #2. Ugly.

 

Have you played Pinehurst #2 since the restoration or only seen it on TV?

 

Your obviously someone who prefers more manicured and modern looking golf courses. Nothing wrong with that. Fortunately imo the golf world is shifting the other direction back to natural design and aesthetic. I think Pinehurst is the best restoration job of my lifetime. It is so much more fun to play now than it was wall to wall rough. IMO.

[Roadking2003]

Curious if your going to answer my question about the merits of what is there now vs the old pics and why you like the new one better?

 

Beauty.

[Roadking2003]

 

Pinehurst did it why not Pebble?

 

Forbid the thought. I will begin praying every day that they will not ruin Pebble like they ruined Pinehurst.

[Roadking2003]

What about those pictures makes the course design good? Basically all sand around a green. Isn't that what a kindergartener would do if tasked with designing holes, for lack of creativity?

 

True. Just like Pinehurst #2. Ugly.

 

Have you played Pinehurst #2 since the restoration or only seen it on TV?

 

Your obviously someone who prefers more manicured and modern looking golf courses. Nothing wrong with that. Fortunately imo the golf world is shifting the other direction back to natural design and aesthetic. I think Pinehurst is the best restoration job of my lifetime. It is so much more fun to play now than it was wall to wall rough. IMO.

 

No. I played it three times before the partial restoration ruined it. I will not go back.

[naws-golfer]

Pebble looks infinitely more natural with the sandy areas. The perfectly manicured grass for miles looks unnatural to the rocky and uneven coastline. Giving the course a more natural look may not dramatically change how it plays, but the course looks much better, which I suppose is a part of design.

 

I don't care. I prefer beauty over natural. I can go to 1000 places and see "natural". Natural <> Beauty.

 

hard eye roll.

 

I bet you like Robert trent jones courses as well? bunkers in the rough? 15 yd width fairways, and every green is raised 3 ft from surrounding bunkers?

 

the goal of every architect should fit the course to the land. look at MPCC, even spyglass to a certain extent, although i think its terrible as well.

 

look at cypress point and its dunes and tell me it would be better with small flat greens and more rough

[az2au]

 

Pinehurst did it why not Pebble?

 

Forbid the thought. I will begin praying every day that they will not ruin Pebble like they ruined Pinehurst.

 

In your opinion, right? I'm with FF. Used to think 2 was mediocre and love it now. I'd have never gone back if they kept the wall to wall grass and heavy rough. Not just because I don't think it is pretty to look at but because it took out so many options of play.

 

I'd love to see Pebble do the same. If done as well as #2 it would be amazing.

[Roadking2003]

Pebble looks infinitely more natural with the sandy areas. The perfectly manicured grass for miles looks unnatural to the rocky and uneven coastline. Giving the course a more natural look may not dramatically change how it plays, but the course looks much better, which I suppose is a part of design.

 

I don't care. I prefer beauty over natural. I can go to 1000 places and see "natural". Natural <> Beauty.

 

hard eye roll.

 

I bet you like Robert trent jones courses as well? bunkers in the rough? 15 yd width fairways, and every green is raised 3 ft from surrounding bunkers?

 

the goal of every architect should fit the course to the land. look at MPCC, even spyglass to a certain extent, although i think its terrible as well.

 

look at cypress point and its dunes and tell me it would be better with small flat greens and more rough

 

Even harder eye roll. Why do you think your opinion is any better than mine? Or any other golfers? Your post exposes your arrogance.

[Roadking2003]

In your opinion, right?

 

Yes, of course. It goes without saying that what one likes and dislikes regarding golf courses is highly subjective and personal.

[FairwayFred]

What about those pictures makes the course design good? Basically all sand around a green. Isn't that what a kindergartener would do if tasked with designing holes, for lack of creativity?

 

True. Just like Pinehurst #2. Ugly.

 

Have you played Pinehurst #2 since the restoration or only seen it on TV?

 

Your obviously someone who prefers more manicured and modern looking golf courses. Nothing wrong with that. Fortunately imo the golf world is shifting the other direction back to natural design and aesthetic. I think Pinehurst is the best restoration job of my lifetime. It is so much more fun to play now than it was wall to wall rough. IMO.

 

No. I played it three times before the partial restoration ruined it. I will not go back.

 

I wonder if you went back and actually played the course if your opinion would change. Tough to make a judgment call on that based on one week of TV viewing. Again to me there is no comparison number 2 used to be an average course w cool greens and now it's amazing, playing options abound, ground game potential, natural beauty, just a great track.

 

Would you please share your personal top 5 - 10 favorite courses you have played?

[XLee2000]

Everybody is going to have a different opinion in terms of what they appreciate. Some people are certainly traditionalists/purists that appreciate a full commitment to the courses setting and natural landscaping while others prefer the church pews of Oakmont or the 17th island green at Sawgrass. To each his own. That said, I tend to appreciate a balance of both. One thing I would probably not lie from these older pics of Pebble is the crazy lies I could end up with in that bunker...which is a product of how courses are setup today where the lies you would find in a bunker today are generally predictable.

[FairwayFred]

Everybody is going to have a different opinion in terms of what they appreciate. Some people are certainly traditionalists/purists that appreciate a full commitment to the courses setting and natural landscaping while others prefer the church pews of Oakmont or the 17th island green at Sawgrass. To each his own. That said, I tend to appreciate a balance of both. One thing I would probably not lie from these older pics of Pebble is the crazy lies I could end up with in that bunker...which is a product of how courses are setup today where the lies you would find in a bunker today are generally predictable.

 

I find Oakmont to be very lay of the land and fitting of the land it's on and it's surroundings. I dont think lumping Sawgrass w Oakmont is at all fair.

[PuttCurseRepeat]

Those old Pebble pictures are pretty cool. Thanks for posting. I wouldn't mind seeing that restored - not that the current course is a pig. Holes 7 and 8 look like there used to be many more pin options.

 

Landscape architecture, in the care of the extremely capable, can appeal to a wide variety of styles. My sensibilities lean toward natural beauty subtly shaped or enhanced by human hands - if the landscape is already naturally stunning. Less is more - sometimes. Other times, highly manicured landscapes transform a non-descript piece of land into something enchanted. It all depends on what's there to begin with and the hand and vision of the architect. I think LA is a very underrated art form.

[XLee2000]

Everybody is going to have a different opinion in terms of what they appreciate. Some people are certainly traditionalists/purists that appreciate a full commitment to the courses setting and natural landscaping while others prefer the church pews of Oakmont or the 17th island green at Sawgrass. To each his own. That said, I tend to appreciate a balance of both. One thing I would probably not lie from these older pics of Pebble is the crazy lies I could end up with in that bunker...which is a product of how courses are setup today where the lies you would find in a bunker today are generally predictable.

 

I find Oakmont to be very lay of the land and fitting of the land it's on and it's surroundings. I dont think lumping Sawgrass w Oakmont is at all fair.

 

Right...so you think the church pew bunkers at Oakmont are very "lay of the land" huh? Sure bud. Is it also very "fitting of the land" that there are NO trees on the course? Great representations of the landscape there.

[FairwayFred]

Everybody is going to have a different opinion in terms of what they appreciate. Some people are certainly traditionalists/purists that appreciate a full commitment to the courses setting and natural landscaping while others prefer the church pews of Oakmont or the 17th island green at Sawgrass. To each his own. That said, I tend to appreciate a balance of both. One thing I would probably not lie from these older pics of Pebble is the crazy lies I could end up with in that bunker...which is a product of how courses are setup today where the lies you would find in a bunker today are generally predictable.

 

I find Oakmont to be very lay of the land and fitting of the land it's on and it's surroundings. I dont think lumping Sawgrass w Oakmont is at all fair.

 

Right...so you think the church pew bunkers at Oakmont are very "lay of the land" huh? Sure bud. Is it also very "fitting of the land" that there are NO trees on the course? Great representations of the landscape there.

 

Well the church pews bunker is a hazard. Man made like almost every other bunker. (the only exceptions to this that I can think of are on ancient links courses or the sand hills of Nebraska) The golf course however is very lay of the land. It follows the natural terrain beautifully. That's part of what makes it so amazing. Have you ever played Oakmont out of curiosity? I've played it about 50 times and also played Sawgrass numerous times and that is a man made golf course not a natural lay of the land golf course with man made hazards like Oakmont. These 2 should absolutely NOT be lumped in the same category.

 

To answer your question about the trees, yes that is actually the natural representation of the land "bud". If you know anything about Oakmonts history there were no trees on the course originally, the trees were all planted by Robert Trent Jones in the 1960s to keep up with the trends at the time. Big mistake that thankfully has been remedied in the last 10 years.

[jerebear21]

did someone just compare oakmont and sawgrass and said they were similar? mind blown.

[krtgolfing]

Love how everyone freaks the heck out when someone has a different opinion about golf courses. For me personally I would prefer a pebble beach/ Kiawah Ocean over a Oakmont/ Merion. Obviously might be different if I ever played those two courses, but as that will never happen so be it.

[raynorfan1]

For me personally I would prefer a pebble beach/ Kiawah Ocean over a Oakmont/ Merion.

 

If you've never played Oakmont or Merion, how do you know that you would prefer Pebble / Kiawah to them?

[dhc1]

What i find over-rated is the increasingly prevalent notion that "natural" courses are inherently better than ones where the architect has to move a lot of earth around. These very same critics (whose pied piper is Tom Doak) hypocritically claim that they don't care about aesthetics when one of their major litmus tests is purely aesthetics (i.e., it has to look natural). For adherents of this philosophy, it's really about resort courses in remote locations as no one is going to be able to build a course like that near a metropolitan area. For example, a large part of the allure of Pacific Dunes is that it's a destination resort in the middle of nowhere and all there is to do is play one of 5 courses and then leave. Just judge the course as its laid out - is it a good test of golf with a variety of shots/strategy required and an enjoyable experience at the same time?

 

In addition, I think these natural-style resort courses in remote locations are over-rated as golf courses (although great to visit!) because as Doak stated,"My objective is to make it difficult for the better golfer by incorporating challenging but subtle features only the trained eye can see, while allowing the hacker to play his usual game." Top end private courses in metropolitan areas require specific shots, aren't built with the usual "hacker" in mind and believe that resistance to scoring in an important element. Some courses go too far with difficulty but to be considered a great course, it doesn't have to be accessible to hackers IMO.

[duffer987]

What i find over-rated in the increasingly prevalent notion that "natural" courses are inherently better than ones where the architect has to move a lot of earth around. These very same critics (whose pied piper is Tom Doak) hypocritically claim that they don't care about aesthetics when one of their major litmus tests is purely aesthetics (i.e., it has to look natural). For adherents of this philosophy, it's really about resort courses in remote locations as no one is going to be able to build a course like that near a metropolitan area. For example, a large part of the allure of Pacific Dunes is that it's a destination resort in the middle of nowhere and all there is to do is play one of 5 courses and then leave.

 

Just judge the course as its laid out - is it a good test of golf with a variety of shots/strategy required and an enjoyable experience at the same time?

 

I think it's a fair point that "natural/minimalist" is a term being bandied about by the few developers still building courses, in much the same way any course without trees during the boom of the 90s was called "links style". And that it can be taken with a degree of salt or an eye roll.

 

That said - over above any golf-hipsterism you might not like - the whole point of a "natural" course IMHO is to promote variety and have holes with a wide range of shot values for a wide range of golfers (with an eye towards Mackenzie's 13 principles) and surely you don't think that is an overrated idea? A natural course could very easily have had tons of earth moved to create it, depending on the site it was built on. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

To the bolded bit, the only ones not judging a course as it's laid out and whether it's a good test of golf as the key factor, are those with the bit between their teeth about Torrey and others who would prefer 20+ Nicklaus courses to Pacific Dunes.

[dhc1]

What i find over-rated in the increasingly prevalent notion that "natural" courses are inherently better than ones where the architect has to move a lot of earth around. These very same critics (whose pied piper is Tom Doak) hypocritically claim that they don't care about aesthetics when one of their major litmus tests is purely aesthetics (i.e., it has to look natural). For adherents of this philosophy, it's really about resort courses in remote locations as no one is going to be able to build a course like that near a metropolitan area. For example, a large part of the allure of Pacific Dunes is that it's a destination resort in the middle of nowhere and all there is to do is play one of 5 courses and then leave.

 

Just judge the course as its laid out - is it a good test of golf with a variety of shots/strategy required and an enjoyable experience at the same time?

 

I think it's a fair point that "natural/minimalist" is a term being bandied about by the few developers still building courses, in much the same way any course without trees during the boom of the 90s was called "links style". And that it can be taken with a degree of salt or an eye roll.

 

That said - over above any golf-hipsterism you might not like - the whole point of a "natural" course IMHO is to promote variety and have holes with a wide range of shot values for a wide range of golfers (with an eye towards Mackenzie's 13 principles) and surely you don't think that is an overrated idea? A natural course could very easily have had tons of earth moved to create it, depending on the site it was built on. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

To the bolded bit, the only ones not judging a course as it's laid out and whether it's a good test of golf as the key factor, are those with the bit between their teeth about Torrey and others who would prefer 20+ Nicklaus courses to Pacific Dunes.

 

I agree with you, although I personally don't agree with all 13 principles and in particular am more biased towards challenging elite golfers (which I aspire to but unfortunately miss) rather than the average bogey golfer. My criticism above is less about specific courses than the sanctimony coupled with hypocrisy that I see in Golf Club Atlas.....

[krtgolfing]

For me personally I would prefer a pebble beach/ Kiawah Ocean over a Oakmont/ Merion.

 

If you've never played Oakmont or Merion, how do you know that you would prefer Pebble / Kiawah to them?

 

Have not played Pebble/ Bandon/ Oakmont/ Merion. Have played Kiawah a lot of times. Just from a hyped standpoint I would be more excited to play Pebble/ Bandon over the other two courses. When I played Pinehurst #2 I was somewhat excited to play. After 18 holes I loved it to death and am going back this year to play #2 with a bunch of other courses in the area. I bet Oakmont and Merion and other courses are a whole different monster obviously comparing pictures/ video to being on site. Just my two cents.